Posted by ettaexpress on 4/27/2014 5:06:00 PM (view original):I have noticed that as well about how the relationship between height and player attributes. But like the previous poster brought out, there still seem to be some issues.

I understand all those issues, but what I don't understand is why the players themselves have such a problem with calling a spade a spade. Maybe they see it as telling them the baby's ugly, but it's not their baby. I could see seble having that view, but I really don't think that a programmer/designer would or should, because they can incorporate good ideas into an improved version of the baby (to continue a metaphor that's obviously becoming labored haha).

I further don't understand why, from very early on, way before battle lines were drawn, that these kinds of comments and suggestion were met with hostility. Maybe my mind works differently than others -- I'm always looking at how something can be made better, what I can do to help make it so, and what opportunities exist that maybe no one else is even seeing. If someone else had good ideas (and some here do, and some have been posted, and I've expressed my approval of those I like), no matter where I am on the stakeholder map, I want to hear them. if I'm seble, then this is gold -- I can make changes that make the game better, bring in more people, make the company more money, which raises my stock and profile in the organization. If I'm a player, then other people are improving my experience for me through no effort of my own. If I'm Fox, the benefit is obvious. Everyone wins from exchange and vetting of ideas -- and maybe we're finally getting close to getting there in some corners of the board, while in other instances entire threads are being devoted to my banishment, which is completely unhelpful regardless of result.

short and 100% honest answer - your mind works differently. Mine works very similarly. If you can accept the basic tenet that we (most of us) are sincerely trying to help (until we get frustrated and some of us lash out) and try to let them belief be the filter through which you read things it might help.

To your first, yes, again, short answer it probably is like telling us our baby is ugly - a lot of us know that, but baby plastic surgery is expensive and risky...

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/27/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):I have no problem with a 6'0 PG player shutting down a 6'6 SF, nor do I have huge deal with giving the defense a little bit more teeth. If anything it will force teams to focus more on having balance, instead overall awesome ATH and DEF then just one or two good scorers.

but in real life (which - I know obviously) at most levels shouldn't a team with elite athleticism and defensive prowess with a couple of good scorers be a pretty good team?

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/27/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):I have no problem with a 6'0 PG player shutting down a 6'6 SF, nor do I have huge deal with giving the defense a little bit more teeth. If anything it will force teams to focus more on having balance, instead overall awesome ATH and DEF then just one or two good scorers.

but in real life (which - I know obviously) at most levels shouldn't a team with elite athleticism and defensive prowess with a couple of good scorers be a pretty good team?

Point well taken, but Ii think my position still has a lot of validity.

As a cosmetic suggestion, I'd like to see player records broken down by conferences too. Should be really easy to implement because the info is already there for each team. Though I'd personally forego all cosmetic "improvements" in favor of substantive changes.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/27/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):I have no problem with a 6'0 PG player shutting down a 6'6 SF, nor do I have huge deal with giving the defense a little bit more teeth. If anything it will force teams to focus more on having balance, instead overall awesome ATH and DEF then just one or two good scorers.

but in real life (which - I know obviously) at most levels shouldn't a team with elite athleticism and defensive prowess with a couple of good scorers be a pretty good team?

Point well taken, but Ii think my position still has a lot of validity.

I think athleticism is pretty overrated on this game and often in real life by fans and pundits. Wisconsin made the final four with a team that few would consider as having elite athletes (Dekker yes, the rest not really). But they can shoot and pass, most of them can dribble and they defend well. On the other side, few things are more common in college these days than athletic teams that aren't very good at basketball.

Another point a friend of mine brought up once...have you ever heard of an elite athlete that was a really below par college defensive player? it seems like the game is essentially double counting defense by making both attributes so important.

I would rather see a more offensive game but I think the better way to do it is to tweak what I outline above rather than denying coaches flexibility.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/27/2014 5:22:00 PM (view original):I have no problem with a 6'0 PG player shutting down a 6'6 SF, nor do I have huge deal with giving the defense a little bit more teeth. If anything it will force teams to focus more on having balance, instead overall awesome ATH and DEF then just one or two good scorers.

but in real life (which - I know obviously) at most levels shouldn't a team with elite athleticism and defensive prowess with a couple of good scorers be a pretty good team?

Point well taken, but Ii think my position still has a lot of validity.

I think athleticism is pretty overrated on this game and often in real life by fans and pundits. Wisconsin made the final four with a team that few would consider as having elite athletes (Dekker yes, the rest not really). But they can shoot and pass, most of them can dribble and they defend well. On the other side, few things are more common in college these days than athletic teams that aren't very good at basketball.

Another point a friend of mine brought up once...have you ever heard of an elite athlete that was a really below par college defensive player? it seems like the game is essentially double counting defense by making both attributes so important.

I would rather see a more offensive game but I think the better way to do it is to tweak what I outline above rather than denying coaches flexibility.

it is overvalued I imagine - probably because it is so stunning to see elite athletes when they make those incredibly athletic plays that just seem impossible...

from a game POV there might be two factors at play. I think a lot of people believe there is a link between ath and def in the stats as generated, so that they often go hand in hand and there are few with one and not the other. I don't know if its true. but if it is and that link were severed that would be a start.

Other things (like the IQ thing that started you off in the very beginning IIRC) could also be looked at and modified to provide an increase in that separation. I hope that if/when seble solicits ideas some of these get thru...

I definitely think there's a correlation in the player generation, as there should be...but depending on how it's handled in the engine it could be essentially doubling the value of ATH in defensive calculations. I don't know the coding obviously to say whether that's the case or not.

I definitely think making IQ something more a matter of intelligence, experience and a certain je ne sais quoi about the game (some guys just get it even when they're young, you know?) would be more interesting and beneficial than making it basically a function of training where everyone is scalable to pretty much the same level. it could also be a real factor in player develop...like if you have a guy with a D IQ but a 3.7 GPA and high WE, you could expect that guy to develop better IQ. Maybe he just got bad high school coaching or something.

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 12:06:00 AM (view original):I definitely think there's a correlation in the player generation, as there should be...but depending on how it's handled in the engine it could be essentially doubling the value of ATH in defensive calculations. I don't know the coding obviously to say whether that's the case or not.

I definitely think making IQ something more a matter of intelligence, experience and a certain je ne sais quoi about the game (some guys just get it even when they're young, you know?) would be more interesting and beneficial than making it basically a function of training where everyone is scalable to pretty much the same level. it could also be a real factor in player develop...like if you have a guy with a D IQ but a 3.7 GPA and high WE, you could expect that guy to develop better IQ. Maybe he just got bad high school coaching or something.

hahaha, I would love to see je ne sais quoi listed as one of the official player attributes.

It wouldn't be, but it would be incorporated (realistically, it would be random) in the guy's starting IQ and max IQ. Not saying all of those things should even be attributes, but just that they should be the kinds of things being thought about in the idea of making IQs more variable both at the starting point and potential peak.

Posted by dacj501 on 4/27/2014 7:26:00 PM (view original):no, from a game stand point it makes sense. more volatility could lead to more ways to win

yeah, it seems like all the time I see guys with good ATH and good/great DEF get beat like a dog by players with great ATH but poor offensive skills...and I'm well aware that a lot more than just individual match-ups go into scoring, but still, I'd like to see that not happen as much.

Posted by asher413 on 4/27/2014 1:16:00 AM (view original):I agree change is needed at high D1 firing/hiring. The worlds aren't quite full enough to say "No D1 job should go unfilled with an applicant!", but I'd like to see a system more based on filling with the best applicant, even if the standards must be lowered.
Here's a really basic chart of standards I'd like to see at D1:
A/A+ baseline prestige: 1 NT miss in 5 years puts you on edge of losing the job. 2 in 8 or so gets you canned. No Elite 8 in 5 years gets you canned.
A-/B+ baseline prestige: 1 complete postseason miss in 5 years puts you on edge. 2 in 10 gets you canned. No Sweet 16 in 6 years gets you canned.

I'd also like to see the amount the coach raised the prestige take effect. If I took a C prestige to an A prestige, I've earned a bit of leeway. But, still make the standards shift slowly up (if you're an A prestige for 8 years, you'd get canned for missing two straight NT's even if you did that work).

I'd also like to see a bigger gap in hiring standards between 'Major' and 'Mid-Major' conferences. Make the door to low D1 wide open, but not the Mountain West, C-USA type jobs.

As stated before, if you get fired from Kentucky, you should still get a mid-major job. I'd make the standard a drop of 1 1/2 prestige letters (A->B-/C+ ish).

Another thing I'd love to see changed is the favorite school metric. Right now it's not really impacting much- I'd rather see two or three schools listed, in a way that is more geographically related. Yes, you have a kid who grew up loving Georgetown in LA, but at least have 1/3rd of the local kids love local schools, and maybe even 5% of them love a lower division school if they're close enough (If you live in the town of a DII school, you may give them a nod of favorite), or 1% in general (call it the 'my dad/cousin/etc. went there factor). Also (and I haven't checked) make sure this lines up with their distance preference. Small changes, but I hate the fact that I *think* most of us just ignore that entire concept of favorite school.

Thanks Nacho for the poll, hopefully this will get some eyes and conversation on the big issues!

I like the idea of all of this.

It would probably help me in assessing the firing part to know how many programs fit into those categories per year, generally speaking. But in principle, it seems to make sense and follow real life to a reasonable extent.

Were that ridiculous set of standards applied to "real life" since it follows real life to a reasonable extent, do you realize that in 2009 Coach K would have been fired from Duke? Hey man, no Elite Eight appearances in a five year span, he's gotta go.

Posted by dacj501 on 4/27/2014 7:26:00 PM (view original):no, from a game stand point it makes sense. more volatility could lead to more ways to win

yeah, it seems like all the time I see guys with good ATH and good/great DEF get beat like a dog by players with great ATH but poor offensive skills...and I'm well aware that a lot more than just individual match-ups go into scoring, but still, I'd like to see that not happen as much.

this whole concept is one I always wanted to see debated but don't remember a lot of it.

In general, how often should a 99 ath, 99spd, 99per, 99bh guy sink the shot against a 99 ath, 99 spd, 99 def defender? How much should his teammates (especially the PG if that isn't him) play into it? What about the defenders teammates that might shoot the gap and interrupt the passing lanes? But in a vacuum - do you start with a concept of 99 everything guy vs another 99 everything defender = same shooting as 75 guy against 75 defender? pretty sure it doesn't work that way given the decision tree...not sur eI am explaining this veryr well..

Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 12:29:00 AM (view original):It wouldn't be, but it would be incorporated (realistically, it would be random) in the guy's starting IQ and max IQ. Not saying all of those things should even be attributes, but just that they should be the kinds of things being thought about in the idea of making IQs more variable both at the starting point and potential peak.

Maybe it'll help sales in France.

I've made the suggestion several times about a player having a "hard cap" on their IQ's also. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me that we have a player's ratings limited by potential, yet every single player (excepting, of course, the very low work ethic guys) can be made to reach an A+ IQ by their senior season. Ratings are no longer linear, why should IQ remain that way?

As Etta said in a different post, some guys just "get it" at an earlier age and some guys "never" get it. So why should everyone with a reasonable WE be able to max out their IQ's? Change IQ's to also incorporate potential with a hard cap on how high they can go and you'll get a whole lot more variability in the game than we have now.

You want to recruit that stud who also happens to be a dumbass? Well, get ready for his IQ to top out at a B-. Or maybe the not quite as athletically gifted brainy kid whose IQ WILL go to an A+? Decisions, decisions, decisions....

Posted by dacj501 on 4/27/2014 7:26:00 PM (view original):no, from a game stand point it makes sense. more volatility could lead to more ways to win

yeah, it seems like all the time I see guys with good ATH and good/great DEF get beat like a dog by players with great ATH but poor offensive skills...and I'm well aware that a lot more than just individual match-ups go into scoring, but still, I'd like to see that not happen as much.

this whole concept is one I always wanted to see debated but don't remember a lot of it.

In general, how often should a 99 ath, 99spd, 99per, 99bh guy sink the shot against a 99 ath, 99 spd, 99 def defender? How much should his teammates (especially the PG if that isn't him) play into it? What about the defenders teammates that might shoot the gap and interrupt the passing lanes? But in a vacuum - do you start with a concept of 99 everything guy vs another 99 everything defender = same shooting as 75 guy against 75 defender? pretty sure it doesn't work that way given the decision tree...not sur eI am explaining this veryr well..

no, I think you did a really good job of explaining, and it is hard to think about how things should go down in a vacuum, but if you're going to reduce it down to that level then wouldn't it make sense for DEF and PER/LP to have equal value?